Apparently, Manifesto games rethought their position regarding hosting this title ("we don't need to be associated with that kind of controversy") after it was pulled from (following being jury-selected to compete in) the Slamdance Guerilla Gamemaker Competition.

The essay accompanying the now-hosted game is a pretty bold document. (That, or a transparent bid to hitch to the bandwagon of a lively news story 8)

I defended the game a couple months ago for just the same reasons he mentions. The game was indeed very insightful, if not a little philosophical about the whole affair.

Those who haven't tried it might want to give it a go.

the beat goes on. (and on!) (edit: and, yet, on further)

well we were asked to help judge this year. unfortunately we could not. i know little about the game other than its name. however given the selection of the name i can only assume it was chosen to create controversy. if the game is good it is just a cynical attempt to generate press. if the game is bad it is just that. a bad game with a bad name.

however there is an interesting doubel standard. we seem to tolerate, enjoy even applaud movies about terrible events. the 9/11 movie etc etc. why can we not accept games with similar subject matter? is there such a difference between passively witnessing horrible events and participating in horrible events?

My 2 cents:

If you want to make a game go ahead, nothing should stop you no matter what. its a game, it's all legal. Granted the idea seems stupid to me, but that's my opinion. someone may enjoy it. If it tells a good story, good for you.

Stopping a game being made is simply a repression of rights end of story. there is no spin you can put on it to say otherwise.

No one's preventing anythign from being made. it's just banned from a competition. I didn't liek the game much (see my review on thsi site), but this still makes the festival lose all credibility in my eyes.

Oh, we do accept a lot of games about terrible events. How about this game, which makes me ashamed to be from the same country as its developers.

The difference between playing a soldier in a war and taking the role of an insane murderer is too big to put those two games on the same level of "terrible-ness".

When you remove the plot from a war, where the average age of the average conscript was nineteen, who's insane?

I don't understand the point. Soldiers are not insane. They obey their commanders. You can all this a weakness or whatever you like, but it's impossible to compare soldiers to some lunatics who just go out and kill without any reason.

In a war that saw the use of Agent Orange and Napalm and the massacres of My Lai and Hue, the distinction between insane murderer and soldier is not so clear. "They were just following orders" doesn't excuse war crimes.

Of course not. But I don't think we were speaking about a game in which you play the role of a war criminal. Such a game would be, of course, quite similar to the Columbine game. But as I understand, the game in question was just about fighting between armies, not about killing civilians. Playing as a simple soldier who has to kill other soldiers (which are trying to kill him, too), and playing as a murderer who has to kill innocent people without any reason are two completely different things.

I agree and disagree with you. :)

A typical war game , such as Medal of Honor, has you fighting for your side, doing as you're told, killing all the enemies. As such, that doesn't really compare to a typical murderer. However, if a war game is made that lets you torture innocent people in the process, I think some people would have an issue with it. You don't just say that soldiers who torture POWs are "just following orders," even if they are... you still consider that to be a crime.

Of course, we have plenty of games where you do act out the part of an insane murderer. I think the real problem isn't the acts being played out in the game, but the fact that it's based on a very tragic occurence that people don't want to have kids acting out. Keep in mind that similar occurences to Columbine have happened multiple times since then throughout the US. They are just not as publicized.

As for the comment about the WTC event, I'm sure that a game based on being one of those terrorists who did that would very quickly get bashed. That's too fresh and too raw in too many people's minds.

I reject the idea for any game that forces you to kill innocent people. A game like the one you described (where soldiers must torture prisoners) is of course as unacceptable as the Columbine game.

of course we accept games about horrible events. we accept all games ... well most all game. it's not the subject matter that makes a difference.

The murderers at Columbine did not kill for no apparent reason, and (at least in their minds) had a noble cause to kill for. They were merely fighting for what they thought was good for the humanity. Just look at it from their point of view.

We've already had many discussions concerning the nature of ethics in games and ethics in general. I think statements like "look at it from their point of view" are moral relativism of the worst kind.

That said, I think the controversy surroundung the game only plays into its hands. It raises its popularity and makes people talk about it. Look what we are doing: spending our time discussing this thing and basing our views on it. So there is no use in creating a fuss around the damn game. Its creators obviously knew people's psychology and found a cheap, dirty way to popularity.

Those who hate the game should stop arguing whether or not it should be forbidden. It shouldn't. Let it exist and disgrace its creators. If it is forbidden, its creators will be regarded upon as some sort of martyrs who fell victim to "evil censorship", and that's exactly what their goal is. It might even help to glorify the actions of the game's protagonist.

I don't think either Klebold or Harris expressed or even thought for that matter that what they were doing was for the good of humanity. Harris wrote in his journal that he wanted to outdo the OK City bombing... sounds more of a move towards fame than good cause or humanity.

I know what you're getting at, in that one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Many instances that reflect this notion exist, but neither Klebold or Harris represent that.

There's a clear distinction between a terrorist and a freedom fighter. A freedom fighter is generally someone who fights for the cause of a group of people (nation, religious sect, etc.) who feel oppressed or persecuted. A terrorist is someone who kills civilians in order to achieve his political goals.

So, a freedom fighter can become a terrorist if he kills innocents in the process of his struggle for freedom. And a terrorist also can be a freedom fighter at the same time, if his terror acts serve the corresponding cause. But those two words are not synonyms and cannot be used to to replace each other.

A terrorist trying to justify his actions by calling himself a freedom fighter is exactly the same as a rapist who justifies his actions by saying he is good in bed.

But those are considering that everyone uses your definitions of the words. Not everyone has the same standard for terrorist or freedom fighter.

In any case, I agree with your definitions, but the point is that those that may be called terrorists may be considered heroes by another group. My analogy with using those words was to reflect upon a previous statement about the perspective of Harris and Klebold.

Well, I think the game should be banned, but then again I oppose free speech, free press, and other particular constitutional notions so I'm not the best one to advocate such an endeavor.

To play devil's advocate, I suppose that the main difference between this game and the Columbine movie is that in the game you're not a passive spectator. You actually step into the shoes of the killers and have to commit murder to "win." I'm not one of those "ban everything objectional" people but I believe the parents and relatives of those who died at Columbine can justify taking offence.

Of the 30 000 games registered on Mobygames, I think that at least 10 000 are about killing people or inflicting life-threatening damage. This is nothing new, people just never noticed.

While I don't entirely disagree with you Iggy, the difference is in the personal nature of the subject matter.

For example, what if there was a game where you pilot hijacked airliners into the WTC? Could we then say that this is nothing new, because we have many other flight simulators documented already?

Also, there are different degrees to how controversial a violent game can be. A futuristic sci-fi shooter where you kill aliens and monsters is almost automatically "safer" then a shooter where you kill human beings or animals. And since the game deals with a real-world tragedy I think at least a few people could justify getting their panties in a bunch.